JUDGMENT
B.S. Nehra, J.
1. This Election Petition filed under the provisions of para 6, Chapter 2, Sections 82, 84 and 100 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. (hereinafter referred, to as ‘the Act’) challenging the election of respondent No. 1 to the Lok Sabha from 3 Karnal Parliamentary Constituency and seeking the declaration of the said election as void, is liable to be dismissed, at the thereshold, due to the non-compliance of the provision of subsection (1) of Section 117 of the Act in so far as it is relevant reads as under:-
“117. Security for costs.-(1) At the time of presenting an election petition, the petitioner shall deposit in the High Court in accordance with the Rules of the High Court a sum of two thousand rupees as security for the costs of the petition.
(2) xxx xxx xxx”.
2. The Registry of the High Court has raised the objection that the security for costs of Rs. 2,000/- has not been deposited before the filing of the petition as required under Section 117(1) of the Act. Instead an application for permission to deposit the amount subsequently has been filed by the petitioner. Some other objections have also been raised by the Registry but it is not necessary to notice those objections as they do not go to the root of the case unlike the objection regarding the default of the petitioner by failing to deposit the amount of security for costs. In his reply to the aforesaid objection, the petitioner has stated, in writing, as under:-
“The para No. 1 of the objection petition is wrong and not admitted. The petitioner wants to deposit a sum of Rs. 500/-as security like security to Lok Sabha seat but the office of the Registrar refused to take Rs. 500/-. The petitioner moved an application to the Registrar for granting exemption for depositing security in election petition on 1st August, 1991 till the payment of penison claim. The pension claim of the petitioner has been sanctioned by the Financial Commissioner vide Memo No. 6/21/91-61B. The petitioner may be allowed to deposit the amount of security i.e. Rs. 2,000/-. The objection may be dealt with accordingly.”
3. It is apparent from the reply of the petitioner that he had not deposited the security for costs in accordance with the above reproduced provision of Section 117(1) of the Act but had sought exemption from depositing the same.
4. Notice had also been issued to respondent No. 1 in this case. On 25th October, 1991, when this case came up for hearing with respect to the default committed by the petitioner, the latter argued his case in person but respondent No. 1 was neither present in person nor through his counsel. The only contention raised by the petitioner is that this Court has ample powers to exempt him from depositing the secutiry for costs amounting to Rs. 2,000/-.
5. After hearing the petitioner, I find that the petitioner was bound to comply with the provisions of Section 117(1) of the Act inasmuch as it is mandatory provision of law. Besides, the law has not given discretion to the High Court to grant exemption as sought by the petitioner. The judgment of the apex Court in Charan Lal Sahu v. Nandkishore Bhatt, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 2464, has a direct bearing on the point under consideration. It was held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Charan Lal Sahu’s case (supra) that “any discretion to condone the delay in presentation of the petition to absolve the petitioner from payment of security for costs can only be provided under the statue governing election disputes. If no discretion is conferred in respect of any of these matters, none can be exercised under any general law or any principle of equity.” The Supreme Court accordingly held that non-deposit of the security along with election petition as required under Section 117 of the Act, leaves no scope for the Court except to reject the petition. In Aeltemesh Rein v. Chandulal Chandrakar, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1149, the Supreme Court gain reiterated the view taken in Charan Lal Sahu’s case (supra).
6. Such thus being the settled position in law, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is, therefore, hereby dismissed on account of the petitioner’s failure to deposit security for costs as stipulated in Section 117(1) of the Act. C.M.No. 7-E of 1991 for grant of exemption to deposit the security for costs also stands disposed of with this order.